Grab-bag Post #5

Grab-bag Post #1

Grab-bag Post #2

Grab-bag Post #3

Grab-bag Post #4 

Naming Stuff

One thing that I always found curious when I was younger and reading an article in Nintendo Power was how much time and effort was put into naming certain things. Specifically, things like the names of enemies in games as well as a small back-story for each one. In the case of things that exist in the real world, like snakes, mummies, and bats, why bother renaming them to Ropes, Gibdos, and Keese? And for things that aren’t actually real (like Zoomers, Squeepts, and Skree in the original Metroid) there might be more descriptive names that would be easier to memorize. Some things, such as Goombas, Octorocks, and Metroids have entered common gaming lexicon due to popularity, but I would be surprised if many people knew what all the enemies in a game like Metroid were called without looking it up. I would bet that overall, people called them ‘bats’ more than ‘Keese’ in Zelda games, even if they know what they’re actually called. I know that things need names, moreso in a game like Dragon Quest (where the names are displayed onscreen) than in something like Metroid, but I think it’s funny that someone was paid to come up with nonsense names for things and that so much paper/ink was used between instruction manuals and magazines informing people of the names. To me it feels like being the writer on the stuff that goes on the back of food packages that nobody ever reads. 

Copycats 

One of the problems with success is how many other people/companies try to replicate it and flood the market with too much of the same thing. Often it’s a lesser quality product, probably because it’s being forced to be made with a lower budget and in a shorter time frame by a corporate higher-up.

Some examples include how every FPS games suddenly became a Call of Duty clone, or how many World of Warcraft-like games were produced. I think part of the problem is that the “copycats” only utilize the superficial elements without really understanding the underlying reasons for why the original was so successful, and that games that are loosely classified as the same genre start to poach mechanics from the successful one instead of finding their own mechanic.

It also happened with Harry Potter franchise and the MCU. I’ve heard reports that book publishers want to be part of the next Harry Potter-like phenomenon, so when an author submits work for a solo novel it gets rejected because there’s not an 8-book plan. When the success of the MCU hit, the concept of the shared universe suddenly drove DC and Universal to do the same thing, and very badly at that. We should just let some books be solo outings and not every movie needs to be part of a 25-part saga told over 10 years. 




Less is More

On a similar note to the above, I also hate when comic creators make too many variations of a particular character. Spider-Man is a great character, but when there were a few, seldom used variants, it was fine. I’m thinking of things like Spider-Woman (Jessica Drew) or Spider-Man 2099. When the clone saga with Ben Reilly/Scarlet Spider happened, I was mostly fine with the concept even if the actual story wasn’t that great. But now there are just waaaaaay too many Spider-Men now. Spider-Gwen, Miles Morales, Spider-Girl, Man-Spider, and the list goes on. I realize that creativity can be hard, but just make new characters instead of being lazy. It happens with a lot of characters. How many Venom, Superman, Iron Man, Thor, Hulk, and Wolverine variants are there now?

But the most egregious thing is when the new (usually lesser) character is given the same name as the original. Laura Kinney is not Wolverine, Miles Morales is not Spider-Man, Sam Wilson is not Captain America, and Jon Kent is not Superman. 



The Pause Button

What I really need is a pause button on life to play my backlog of games because I weigh time spent/perceived happiness against what this particular game would give me at that particular time. So for example, when I have 2 hour to kill, I would deem that it's not worth my time to play Al Unser’s Racing on an NES emulator, but might be worth it to play Banjo-Kazooie on NSO or to replay Waverace64 on real hardware. But if I had a "pause button" for life that would stop everything and I could just try every game I've ever wanted to play without the rest of the world moving forward then I would be confident that I'm spending my time wisely. Alternatively, I wish I could send my 8-year-old self a fully hacked system that has all of the NES ROMs but they are time-locked to be playable when each game officially releases in the US. One can dream. 





Addendum to "Using up all the Good Stuff" from Grab-bag Post #1

Like the Fox X-Men, the producers on the original Spider-Man movie trilogy opted to present the most known and popular set of characters rather than try to re-tell all of Spider-Man’s comics history, by which I mean specifically skipping over Gwen Stacy and Betty Brandt, and beginning with a simplified version of the Mary Jane story. In other words, they have 40 years of stories and distill down to a 2-hour movie so they pick the best parts. 

While I can see that they kinda wanted to put all their eggs into the basket because it was unknown if there would be a sequel or whatever, it also kinda means that they blow their wad a little early. Unfortunately, they kinda use up all of their good stories and characters in the first two movies and don’t have a whole lot to use if they’re successful. And then if there are more stories, they either have to make massive changes (like meeting Gwen after already being engaged to Mary Jane and having it mess with Peter's relationship) or start shooting from the hip and invent all new stories (which hasn't gone well, traditionally).

If they knew that there would definitely be a trilogy or some kind of cinematic universe, then they can plot out when to use the best stories and characters in the best way. Dr. Connors was mentioned in the first movie, then seen as a side character in the second and third movies. Having him become the Lizard in the fourth movie would have been excellent. But we didn't see him until the Andrew Garfield reboot. As with a lot of things, it all comes down to planning. If you fail to plan, you plan to fail. 

X-Men '97 is the best example of this. The series itself was excellent, and the best Marvel thing made for D+ to date. It kept the spirit of the original series and tried to bring back as many voice actors as humanly possible. But my only problem was that because they had 10 episodes and uncertainty of a second season, it seemed like the writers were trying to speed-run all of the major plots from the Chris Claremont 1980's X-Men run into one season. Stories like the Mutant Massacre could have easily been a 3-episode arc, but it was the B-plot of episode 4 instead. 

 

Grab-bag Post #6 

 

Barbie: Why I care, the nature of adaptations, and the future of them

As I type this, the Barbie movie is about to start playing in theaters, which prompted my thoughts. Here’s the thing: I know I’m not the target demographic. It’s not made for me, and I’m fine with that. I’m under no delusion where every movie must appeal to every demographic, but most especially mine in particular. That’s not to say that I don’t enjoy movies which were, ‘not meant for me.’ I love movies in general, and even when watching movies in genres that aren’t my favorite (westerns, “chick flicks,” slashers, etc.), I can still find redeeming qualities about them. I can still admire the camera work, the editing, or the acting, even when the movie isn’t great. But the thing that makes any movie great is a good, compelling story with character growth. For instance, I quite enjoyed Nottinghill, While You Were Sleeping, The Grand Budapest Hotel, and The Tudors series, which might surprise people.

So having prefaced with all of that, I hope Barbie is a good movie. I’m actually somewhat thrilled that something NOT for me is coming out because there has been so much low-quality superhero stuff lately. I hope it’s got good writing and direction. But mostly, I hope that it is made for the fans of Barbie, just like how Nintendo/Illumination made The Super Mario Bros. Movie for the fans like me. If Barbie turns out to be made for the fans, but is also something that I can enjoy, then even better. I’m envisioning something like Mean Girls, which I quite liked because I think Tina Fey is an excellent comedic writer, or something like Legally Blonde, even though (again) I’m not in the target demographic.

When adapting an existing Intellectual property/brand for the big screen, the producers have one of several directions they can choose. [Note: None of this takes into account the amount of studio meddling that can occur that can (and often does) ruin films (like the Hobbit Trilogy or Transformers), but that’s a topic for a different day. Let’s just assume that the writer/director is able to make their vision of how the film should be with minimal studio interference.]

1. Do it straight. Make it exactly like the source material with little to no changes. Example: The Super Mario Bros. Movie (2023). The source material is intended for kids as young as 5 all the way through adults, and the movie was made so that a 5-year-old would be completely fine with what is presented on screen. It doesn't shy away from what it always has been - a plumber from Brooklyn with extraordinary jump height in a fantasy world fighting a giant turtle who is a simp for Peach. 

2. Make it as faithfully as possible with certain scene deletions because of runtime constraints and minimal changes so that it’s more believable. Examples: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

3. Make it fit within our world, i.e., no actual fantastical elements present and “realistic” explanations for powers/magic or the need for costumes. Example: The Dark Knight Trilogy, Captain America’s shield ricocheting instead of somehow magically returning, X-Men’s black leather outfits instead of yellow spandex or Magneto’s helmet designed to keep telepaths out. Mysterio's powers are explained as advanced Stark hologram tech combined with drones in Spider-Man: Far from Home. The 1993 Super Mario Brothers film had the characters wear lift boots to explain their jumping abilities, though this is an instance of a terrible adaptation.

4. Make it evolve from the original into something deeper and take them to a logical progression. Examples: Scooby-Doo started exactly how a typical episode would end, but then time jumped with some character development off screen. Cobra Kai starts off 30 years later with the characters we knew from the Karate Kid movies and how their lives turned out. Both instances flesh out the characters and make them more 3-dimensional. 

5. Make a parody of it, a comedy out of it, or just make it super self-aware/meta. Examples: Toy Story doesn’t fit here because it wasn’t adapting anything that already existed, but The Lego Movie does. It is very self-aware/meta in that we jump to the “real world” and see that the movie we have been watching was in the imagination of a kid this whole time. The Brady Bunch was a fun comedy that all could enjoy but was very self-referential about the TV series with lots of callbacks and references for those who remember the original show. It skirted the line between adaptation and parody, but it was also very meta in that their world/house was stuck in the 70’s while everyone else moved on and so the Brady’s were the weird people in the neighborhood with the, “aw, shucks,” kind of charm to contrast the nihilism and cynicism of everyone else. And both 21 Jump Street and Starsky & Hutch turned serious 70's era TV police dramas into buddy cop comedy movies, with only the title of the film tying it to the original IP. Scream was fairly meta for horror movies, but the first one still worked pretty well.

6. “Disney-fy” it, where they take the characters and main overall plot, but add colorful side-characters, add in musical elements, and potentially turn all of the characters into animals. Examples: Robin Hood, The Little Mermaid, Mary Poppins, Beauty and the Beast, Mulan, Willy Wonka (1971), and the list could go on. From what I understand, the original novel of Mary Poppins was more like how the movie of Nanny McPhee turned out. I can totally sympathize with Pamela Travers for not wanting Mary Poppins to be “Disneyfied” and filled with silly cartoons and songs just for the sake of making a Disney movie to Walt’s liking. Obviously the Robin Hood movie made with foxes, bears, and roosters takes only the positive, romanticized elements of the story and turns it into a fun adventure meant for kids. Same goes for Ariel’s animal sidekicks like Flounder, Sebastian, and Scuttle in The Little Mermaid who weren't present in Hans Christian Anderson's original novel.

Along with how the adaptation is made, there is also the choice of what age group/demographic to target it towards. Do you take something that was popular at one time in the 7-10 year old crowd in the mid 80’s and make it more realistic for the same group of people who are now in their early 20’s (rated PG-13 or R), or do you keep it the same so that the current group of 7-10 year olds will like it but it will seem too childish for the original fans who are now adults? The 1990 TMNT movie was definitely intended to be seen by the 13-15 year-old demographic, as they had been around 9 years old when the cartoon was on TV, whereas the sequels were made for younger audiences. Additionally, how much fan service do you throw in? (not the gratuitous cleavage shots kind of thing, but small references to other characters/places in the universe, such as the list of known mutants in X2 that appears briefly or background elements like the Disk-Kun store in Super Mario Bros. – aka, “member berries”)

Do you make it geared towards the die-hard fans who want a faithful adaptation and are already familiar with the world, its characters, and need no explanation and risk low box-office returns? Do you make it more accessible with “normies” in mind but still passable for the original fans, hoping that this movie will attract new fans to the original source materials? Or do you make it just another generic comedy/action movie that happens to feature characters/settings whose names resemble something from an already-established IP in the hopes of making a large box office return, but pissing off the original fan base in the process (like the JarJar Abrahms Star Trek movies)?


There is a 7th option, though – and that’s to buy the rights to an existing IP and use it to promote some kind of political/social message and count on the installed fan base to make it a commercial success. Or take something that was originally male-led and gender/race-swap many or most of the characters, and stuff it full of “strong, female characters.” This is what Ghostbusters 2016, Star Wars 7-9, Indy 5, Netflix/Kevin Smith’s He-Man, Terminator: Dark Fate, Little Mermaid (2023), and The Rangs of Power did, and it sacrificed the die-hard fans for an influx of normies. Instead of making an original IP to spread whatever message, they know that nobody will go see their movie so by grafting "The Message™" onto something else, they essential pay for an inbuilt, guaranteed audience (at least until word-of-mouth gets around that the movie is shit). Clearly I’m not a fan of this kind of adaptation and have no qualms in saying so. The shorthand way of saying this is, “injecting woke-ness” into something that already exists.

Having said all that, I’m in the Orson Scott Card camp of rather having something not be adapted for the silver screen at all than be made badly (which is why it took 30 years to get Ender’s Game made). So I hope that Barbie fans are not disappointed. But what I hope for most is that it doesn’t do the following things:

1. Turn into a preachy, Social Justice™, man-hating platform so that the producers can get, “The Message™” out to everyone by purchasing an IP with an already-existing fanbase.

2. Turn into a parody of itself instead of celebrating the legacy of a beloved toy for the past 60-odd years, or turn into something Barbie was never intended to be, like inserting her into a Rambo or Terminator movie roll.

3. Aimed at mid-40’s moms instead of 7-year-old girls with adult jokes/references.

4. Force Barbie fans and girls to learn what it's been like for Star Wars fans for the last decade (meaning that they get to see what it's like to have their beloved franchise ruined). 

While I can see that making it more of a comedy that pokes fun at dolls and such would make it have broader appeal so that boyfriends don’t feel “dragged” to the theaters by their girlfriends, I would rather it stay true to its origins and be made for the fans. I hope it’s something that little girls and their moms can bond over. But we’ll see what happens.

And what I want for the future of the current culture war is that the Barbie movie is the second of a bunch of well-adapted films mostly targeted towards the fans who already enjoy/purchase their merchandise (obviously, SMB was the first one), and that Hollywood stops trying to inject politics and wokeness into the things we enjoy. I want He-Man and G.I. Joe movies meant for boys, and Barbie movies meant for girls, in other words. 

Star Wars, Marvel, Transformers, G.I. Joe, etc. are boys' brands, but Disney bought them to get more boys to buy their stuff (obviously the Princesses thing has been and continues to be a girls' brand). But instead of just keeping them [ the boys' brands] the way that they were (you know, the way that made them popular in the first place), Disney is trying to also turn them into another girls' brand. Sports (in general) is also facing a similar problem. 

I want them to stop trying to turn male properties into androgynous or female properties (though I can’t think of examples that go the other way, really). As much as I don’t like and have never liked Barney the Dinosaur, I don’t want to see a raunchy teen comedy with him, nor a serious K-9 unit crime noir drama called Blues Clues just because the kids who grew up with those things are now adults. I’ll even take more of something like X-Men, which was accessible enough that even my dad liked it. Just no more of the crap that Lucasfilm/Disney has been making recently.

First!

There was a joke/meme in early internet forums where the first person to leave a comment usually just left, "First!" to leave a record that they were the person to pull up the article the soonest after its publication. Ultimately, it’s just human psychology, but we put a great deal of emphasis on being first. First person to win a race, sure - that’s obvious, but what I’m talking about is something like first person to discover penicillin, first President of the US, first person to do a 900 on a skateboard in competition, etc. What’s funny and/or interesting to me is when further distinctions and qualifiers are added so that there can be more firsts, especially when the motivation behind the qualifiers are easily discerned.

The best example of this is how in school I learned who some of the American “firsts” in space were, including Alan Shepherd, John Glenn, and Sally Ride. But names I never learned were Laika, Yuri Gagarin, and Valentina Tereshkova - Russians who did it before the Americans. That’s when I realized that the qualifiers were there to make me feel better as an American, since we weren’t actually the first. However, that distinction is never made with Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin - they’re never listed as the first Americans on the moon, but as the first humans on the moon.

What brought up this shower thought? It’s been a bunch of things in recent pop culture history. It seems like everyone in politics and Hollywood (which, let’s face it, are almost the same thing these days) is racing to become the first at something. Since she wasn’t the first dwarf portrayed on screen, or even the first female dwarf as she claimed (that credit goes to some actresses in the Hobbit movies), Sophia Nomvete had to correct her statement to be the first female dwarf of color to be shown on screen. They’re just tripping over themselves to be the first at something, and each time the “accomplishments” get more and more insignificant with each qualifier, and they all seem to be centered around some identity characteristic - the first black person of Caribbean descent to host the New Year’s Eve countdown on NBC, the first Latino to dance the box step in the Ed Sullivan Theatre in the month of February, etc.

Instead of being just some interesting footnote in history that is destined to become the answer to a Jeopardy! or Trivial Pursuit question, they all but break their arms patting themselves on the back about this momentous occasion, thinking they’re basically the same as Jackie Robinson when it comes to breaking down barriers. Once I noticed this, it dawned on me that it was akin to the stupid stats that bored sports commentators bring up during a lull in the game, such as the fact that this team has never lost when playing on Halloween while wearing purple uniforms when there’s a full moon. So many qualifiers means that they’re reaching to make a big deal out of essentially nothing. In a world where justice "frontiers" are increasingly rare, everyone is clamoring over recognition of being the first to stand against vanishingly small incidents of "oppression," in other words. 

But to really answer the question about what brought this on, it was Jennifer Lawrence’s statement about being the first female lead of an action movie (as if Aliens, Terminator 2, Red Sonja, Kill Bill, Charlie’s Angels, Underworld, Resident Evil, and Tomb Raider didn’t exist).

But putting politics and Hollywood aside, it did actually cause me to think about primacy when it comes to certain things in video games and other pop culture. The thing I realized after contemplating this is that sometimes being the first isn’t the best but it lingers because it makes an indelible mark on the human mind. It's called having a Primacy Bias.

There really are “original absolutists” who will argue till they’re blue in the face that no matter what, it’s better just because it came first. The Adam West Batman theme has been a staple in pop culture ever since it was on TV, but the upbeat, surf rock song pales in comparison to Danny Elfman’s far superior theme used in the Michael Keaton movies and the Animated Series. But solely due to being the first official Batman theme, the music from the 60’s has stuck around, even more so than the music used in the Nolan-directed movies. Basically the same argument can be made for the original animated Spider-Man theme ( . . . “does whatever a spider can” . . ) as being the default theme despite (again) the existence of a much better Elfman theme.

There were previous Superman themes from various radio and television productions, but John Williams’ composition for the 1978 Christopher Reeve movie was so perfect that it should have been the de facto theme for all things Superman going forward (and was for the Brandon Routh movie), but it has been replaced by inferior themes in animated series and the Snyder-directed movies. Not sure how much of it was ego and how much was copyright as far as reasons to not use those themes, but clips of Henry Cavill flying to John Williams’ music are much more inspiring.

Other examples of the first one not necessarily being the best are Terminator 2, Portal 2, Street Fighter 2, The Dark Knight, The Empire Strikes Back, Aliens, the aforementioned Danny Elfman Batman theme and John Williams Superman theme, John Ottman’s X2 theme (and while we’re at it, X2 as a movie), Spider-Man 2, and Mega Man 2.

I honestly think that if the Twilight Princess Hyrule Field music (which is iconic in its own right) had been the music for the original Legend of Zelda, that’s what would be called the “Zelda Theme” and have little musical references to it in future games. While I love the original theme song, I think future musical themes were objectively better (both in terms of composition and because of improved audio technology) but the original has stuck around just because it’s the original. The same can be said for the first Super Mario Bros. music and the Phoenix Wright music - the original ones are the ones that are thought of as THE theme for their respective franchises.

Something similar happens to movies/games that are changed or updated - a debate over original or “new and improved” inevitably ensues. I kinda hate when changes are made to something and I like the new one better, because it makes me wish they had just done it right the first time so there wouldn’t be a debate over original vs. improved versions. A great example of this is the Gerudo symbol in the Zelda series. It was first introduced in Ocarina of Time along with other symbols for the various tribes like Deku, Zora, and Goron. But what made it more prominent was its inclusion on all of the various floor switches that Link presses to open doors or whatever. The original symbol had a crescent moon and a 4-pointed star. However, because of its similarity to the Turkish Flag it was changed to avoid drawing the ire of the Islam nation (along with the Fire Temple music). I like the new symbol just as much as the original, but it bugs me that it wasn’t made right the first time. I did like the original Fire Temple music better, however, and the updated version that uses a re-worked version of the Shadow Temple music is inferior.

Another example is the Special Edition of Star Wars: A New Hope. There were at least 15 major changes, and quite a few other minor tweaks made to the movie. Most of them are ones I agree with, but a few I would leave out (Han shot first, in other words). But I have the choice of watching the original theatrical version, or the one that has enhanced visuals and sound but includes Greedo’s badly aimed shot. Many people prefer the original theatrical cut of the film and consider it to be the superior product despite its flaws/limitations just because it was first/original.

Even Tolkien went back and revised the story originally told in the Hobbit about how Bilbo acquired the ring so it would work better for the Lord of the Rings, and basically just made the original story (where he won the ring fair and square) the one that Bilbo told people in order to hide the truth and make his claim on the ring stronger. It just also happens that a publisher made the corrections to the manuscript and the Hobbit has been published with the updated story ever since, and only the first couple of printings had the original tale.

Ultimately, being a fan of something means that we’ll get into pointless internet debates over which version of something is better, can an elevator lift Thor’s hammer, etc. But I weary of the weight given to something just for being the first (sometimes also called the Anchoring cognitive bias) over all of the other characteristics that would otherwise make comparisons easy and straight-forward.

The Spider-Man Movies (part 2)

 

The Spider-Man Movies (part 1)

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

The Buildup: 

After Spider-Man 3 was panned by fans and critics, the Webslinger gets rebooted less than 5 years later so that Sony can maintain the rights. It promised to right the wrongs of the past trilogy and give our hero a fresh start.

The Plot: 

After being abandoned at his aunt and uncle’s house as a young child, Peter Parker has always wondered about the mysterious circumstances of his parents’ disappearance. He sneaks into Oscorp to find answers and is bitten by a genetically modified spider, giving him powers. He later witnesses his uncle get killed by a thief. He uses his powers to try and track the thief down but is ultimately unsuccessful, and decides to turn his skills to preventing other crime. Meanwhile, Kurt Connors is developing a limb regeneration technology and is given the missing algorithm by Peter using his father’s notes. Dr. Connors turns into the Lizard, and seeks to implement his evolutionary cure to the entirety of New York City.

What went right: 

Mostly all the stuff that the Raimi movies got wrong, like using mechanical web shooters instead of organic webbing. Spider-Man was a lot more lively and funny when in the costume and seemed more similar to his comic book version. Updated elements like Spider-Man playing on his phone while sitting on the web in the sewer were nice. Starting his love life with Gwen Stacy (who is played fantastically by Emma Stone), and seeing a new villain (also well-acted by Rhys Ifans). I also like how they stuck to Peter being in high school and didn’t jump ahead to adulthood. The costume was pretty good, and because they didn’t use the raised rubber it didn’t look silver colored, but the webbing pattern looked more like a wire-frame model and didn’t have the traditional “scoop” shape to it.

What went wrong: 

Peter was a little too angsty and focused on the mystery of his parents’ death, which was never emphasized in the original source materials. On the other hand, he wasn’t as nerdy or unpopular as he should have been (specifically the scenes with Flash being a bully and the basketball practice). Aunt May and Uncle Ben were okay but not as good as they were in the Raimi movies, and they tried to say Uncle Ben’s famous line without actually saying it. There was also a distinct lack of J. Jonah Jameson, but to be fair, it would be hard to follow up J.K. Simmons' amazing performance, which is why the MCU version is also played by Simmons. 

What I would have changed:

While it was intentionally different from the first trilogy (to avoid as many retread comparisons as possible), about the only things I could think of is to do some stuff more like the Raimi movies. I honestly liked this movie only just a little bit less than the first Spider-Man movie, despite having the various plot elements changed (like the focus on his parents). Though it was a reboot (which felt really early since not a lot of time had passed between Spider-Man 3 and this) and all the effort going into making this movie distinct from the Raimi trilogy, all things considered it was pretty good. I do feel like if we could have chosen about 80% from the Raimi movies and 20% from this movie and frankensteined it together, we would have made the perfect Spider-Man movie.

 

 

  

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

The Buildup: 

After keeping the rights alive by releasing a new Spider-Man movie reboot, Sony is looking to keep the momentum and build something similar to what Marvel was starting to pull off with the MCU. A few new cast additions like Paul Giamotti and Jamie Foxx, as well as characters like Harry Osborn making an appearance had fans excited.

The Plot: 

Peter continues the case concerning his parents’ disappearance while dealing with being a high school student and juggling his responsibilities as Spider-Man. Harry Osborn starts to fall ill with a genetic disease, and it’s determined that Spider-Man’s blood may save him. Peter’s refusal angers Harry, who uses his father’s research and equipment to become the Green Goblin. Meanwhile, an Oscorp employee falls into a tank of electric eels being used for research and acquires electricity-based powers. Both villains team up to take out Spider-Man, but after Electro is stopped, Harry drops Gwen from a tower and Peter is unable to save her.

What went right: 

The suit was improved with the big white eyes, and the blue was a bit brighter. Seeing Gwen’s death done right was both exciting and unexpected.

What went wrong: 

Sony was competing with the MCU and tried to set up their own little Spider-verse here, and there was waaaay too much focus on that and not enough on the main plot concerning Spider-Man. Some of the plot elements, like Spider-Man’s blood being the cure for Harry, were not well thought out. Electro’s portrayal seemed on par with Riddler’s from Batman Forever. The way they turned Rhino into (essentially) an Iron Man suit tank was just silly. It seems like this movie fell into the same trap that Iron Man 3, X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, and Blade 3 all fell into with trying to do too much in a movie by combining two disparate stories together into one narrative.

What I would have changed: 

Mainly focused only on one villain, so I would have gone with Electro since we’d already seen two versions of the Goblin in the Raimi films, and save him for the third movie (assuming one got made). And with only one villain, there is now adequate screen time to fully develop the character and make the origin less silly and more believable. That said, if Gwen’s death was still in the movie, I would have had Captain Stacy’s subtle ghost behind Peter as he is mourning over Gwen’s grave to hammer in the guilt just a bit harder. I also would have taken out Paul Giamotti’s role entirely.

The X-Men Movies (Part 4 - Deadpool Trilogy and "Other")

The X-Men Movies (Part 1 - Original Trilogy)

The X-Men Movies (Part 2 - Prequel Trilogy)

The X-Men Movies (Part 3 - Wolverine Trilogy)

Deadpool (2016)

The Buildup: 

After years of being denied a second chance at the role, Ryan Reynolds “leaked” some test footage onto the internet once Tom Rothman was gone from Fox. He and the director arranged to get a small amount of funding to make this happen, and it looked like it was going to be almost perfectly comic accurate. The movie was releasing on Valentine’s Day, so some of the ad campaign made it seem like a love story so men could get their unaware girlfriends into the theater. Another side of the ad campaign were videos about testicular cancer checks from Deadpool on YouTube.

The Plot: 

Wade Wilson is a smalltime mercenary who falls in love with Vanessa before finding out he has cancer. In an effort to save his loved ones the pain of seeing him die, he opts for an experimental treatment that turns out to be a operation that makes mutant soldiers sold as slaves. In the process he gains phenomenal healing and regenerative abilities but is left permanently scarred. Taking the name Deadpool, he works his way through the criminal underworld to get revenge on the people who transformed him and kidnapped his girl.

What went right:

Just about everything. Deadpool was perfect in this. It exactly encapsulated the character, his antics, fourth-wall breaking, and inability to shut up. The story wasn’t anything groundbreaking, but it didn’t need to be – a simple revenge story mixed in with a love and kidnapping subplot was plenty. Plus, Wade and Vanessa had great chemistry together.

We got to see Blind Alfred, Vanessa (Copycat), and a comics accurate Colossus (finally). Negasonic Teenage Warhead was changed from the comics version of a telepath and precog to be closer to something like Cannonball. Gina Carano was a brilliant choice for Angeldust, as it was very believable that she knew how to throw a punch.

There were plenty of jokes poking fun at the Fox producers, Reynolds' past role of Green Lantern, how terrible Deadpool was in X-Men Origins: Wolverine, the confusing X-Men timeline, etc.

What went wrong:

A few jokes didn’t land as well as they could have, and some of the funniest bits were kinda spoiled in the trailer.

What I would have changed:

Not a damn thing.

 

 

Deadpool 2 (2018)

The Buildup: 

Deadpool is back and he’s got some new friends this time, as well as a bigger budget since the first movie was so profitable. Deadpool took over Blu-ray releases, as all of the cardboard slipcovers were replaced with Deadpool versions of basically every Fox-produced film at stores like Wal-Mart. Fans of the first movie know what to expect so there wasn’t a fakeout campaign, though there was a PG-13 re-release where Deadpool read the story of Deadpool 2 to an adult Fred Savage in a recreated bedroom set from The Princess Bride with the proceeds going to cancer research.

The Plot: 

After a job goes badly, Vanessa is killed in a revenge hit, sending Wade in a spiral and he ends up being an X-Men trainee after attempting suicide. Meanwhile in the future, Cable’s family is also killed by a fire-powered super villain, so he uses a time-travel device to return to the present to take the bad guy out while he’s still a kid. Wade ends up attempting to save the kid from Cable, while teaming up with Domino, Colossus, and Negasonic before finding out who the real villain is.

What went right: 

Mostly everything again. More fourth-wall breaking, referencing the Logan movie's success, and poking fun at the Origins: Wolverine movie. Seeing the Juggernaut and Cable done properly.

What went wrong: 

The movie had a few more jokes that didn’t land than the first one. Due to the plot being about Vanessa’s death, she had very little screen time despite being one of the bright spots of the first film.

What I would have changed:

Cut the budget by a few million and see if it turns out better. I somewhat feel like the budgetary constraints the first movie had forced the director/writer/Reynolds to be more creative, and with an increase in budget a commensurate increase in quality wasn't there. 

 

 

Deadpool & Wolverine (2024)

The Buildup: After being bought by Disney, the Fox Studios properties can finally be put into the big tent of Marvel, leaving only Spider-Man with shared custody with Sony. How the R-rated Deadpool would integrate with the more family friendly MCU remains to be seen, but the biggest draw is the team-up with the old canucklehead himself, Wolverine. The announcement seemed to be (or was suspected of being) prompted by a rather lackluster post-Endgame D23 presentation so Reynolds was quickly allowed to make it known about this movie's existence. 

The Plot: Wade tries to move on from Vanessa by becoming an Avenger, but is denied a tryout by Happy and settles on being a car salesman. But he is apprehended by the TVA (from the Loki series) and made aware of the death of his timeline due to an anchor being dying, that being Wolverine. Deadpool steals the controls and goes to a variety of alternate timelines to find a replacement Wolverine and stop his reality's impending death, but get trapped in the Void, where forgotten things are dumped. There he meets and teams up with other forgotten Fox-Marvel characters including Elektra, Blade, Johnny Storm, and Laura/X-23 and fight against Xavier's twin sister Cassandra. Wolverine is redeemed to be the hero he was supposed to be and their reality gets to continue going on. 

What went right: As usual, the humor was on point, and Disney actually let Deadpool do his thing, even skirting the line that Marvel boss Feige told them not to cross. We get to see one last hurrah for many characters, and Gambit being done right. Seeing Wolverine and Deadpool get to endlessly pummel each other while neither dies, as well as seeing AoA Wolverine, Patch, Comics-accurate Wolverine, and others referencing famous comics covers/poses. It also had the variations of Deadpool (Ladypool, Kidpool, Dogpool, etc.) as well as the yellow-blue Wolverine suit with the mask. 

What went wrong: Some of the humor is going to be fairly time-sensitive, like the (then) current state of the MCU. Having to loop in the TVA a bit means giving that Loki series some legitimacy that I would really like to ignore. 

What I would have changed: Basically written out the TVA and replaced it with something similar just so viewers wouldn't have needed to be subjected to that Disney Minus trash series. 

 

  

Dark Phoenix (2019) and The New Mutants (2020)

The Buildup:

Honestly, the less said about these movies the better. I went in to Dark Phoenix expecting a train wreck, and I got it. The only reason we went was because we were meeting family in Vegas on the weekend it released and we had 4 hours to kill before checking in to the hotel, and there was air conditioning in the theater. I watched New Mutants once at home after downloading it, because it kept getting delayed because of Covid, the Disney/Fox merger, and reshoots. 

The Plot:

Don’t Care. I couldn't tell you what happened despite having watched it. Didn't even buy it on DVD. 

What went right:

There's always a new character to see on screen. 

What went wrong:

A lot. So much. 

What I would have changed:

Like Apocalypse, I just would not have made either movie, period.

The Wrap Up

The X-Men franchise is about half and half when it comes to good, quality superhero movies. I'm glad that they were able to enter the scene and pave the way for Spider-Man and the MCU movies, and I'm happy that when I refer to something from the X-Men in conversation there's a decent chance the person will know what I'm talking about, which wasn't the case when I was in high school. But I would rather them have made fewer movies that were good than more that are mediocre. If we just excise Apocalypse, Dark Phoenix, and New Mutants from the onscreen canon, then what we see is only a couple of bad movies (X3 and Origins) whose problems were eventually fixed with time travel in Days of Future Past. 

As much as I have always been a little pessimistic about Fox's handling of the franchise, I'm not super optimistic about it being in the hands of Disney at the moment. For now, I just hope they give it a rest and let people absorb what's come so far before shoving more down their throats and giving everyone superhero fatigue from bad movies. 

The X-Men Movies (Part 3 - Wolverine Trilogy)

The X-Men Movies (Part 1 - Original Trilogy)

The X-Men Movies (Part 2 - Prequel Trilogy)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

The Buildup: 

After the financial success of three X-Men films, and critical success on two of them, Fox was set to milk this franchise by producing origin story movies for some of the more popular characters like Magneto, Xavier, and Logan. This was touted to be the first in the spin-off series of movie designed to flesh out the stories told in the main trilogy. 

The Plot: 

Witnessing his father being killed, James Howlett discovers he’s a mutant with bone claws. He and his half-brother run away from home and serve in all the major US wars from Civil to Vietnam when they are recruited to a Special Forces team. Wolverine leaves the team and tries to live a normal life but when his brother and past come back to haunt him, he volunteers for a procedure that will give him an adamantium skeleton. He spends the rest of his time getting revenge for what happened to him, ultimately leading to the loss of his memory.
 
What went right: 

It started off seeming to follow his origin which had been recently revealed in the pages of Marvel Comics, and had an epic opening scene for the various wars.

Working The 3-Mile Island incident into the origin kinda fits in with the other movies in the way that they worked the Holocaust, JFK Assassination, and Cuban Missile Crisis into the plots.
Several major character origin plot points were shown in earnest and not just in flashback form.

What went wrong:

12-yr-old James could have had his first rage onset be a bit better scripted/directed. Wade’s faster-than-Jedi propeller sword slinging and Maverick (Agent Zero’s) backflip didn’t just push the bounds of believability – it stepped right over the line into ridiculousness territory. The Native American wolverine/moon story (Kuekuatsheu) was a little too on the nose, and it’s actually about a wolf, not a wolverine. The movie kinda shied away from connecting Victor to the Sabretooth from the first movie, even though comic fans knew. An explanation for why Victor became Sabretooth (like a memory wipe) would have been nice.

In the same way that we didn’t need an origin for Han Solo’s blaster or Chewie’s bandolier, we also didn’t need one for Logan’s dogtags, especially since it implies that they made them while he’s just waiting there in the water. Same goes for his jacket. Naming the old lady Heather Hudson was a bad attempt at fanservice/easter egg because it didn’t fit with the comics, and we would only know her name if we read the credits.

Weapon X as being the Roman number 10 had been a recent thing in the comics and it immediately became movie lore. Same goes for Emma Frost and her diamond skin thing.
Stryker’s facility doesn’t resemble the Alkali Lake set from X2 very much, and somehow, the claws looked worse than the past 3 movies. It seemed like the producers tried to cram almost every action movie cliché into this one – Zero’s backflip, motorcycle escape out of exploding barn, claws to do a 180, Zero’s jump into the helicopter, jump to kill helicopter in slow motion, lighting the trail of gasoline and walking away from the explosion without looking, the jump punch to knock out Blob, and so on.

The fight with Gambit was only in the movie because the pacing guide for the script dictated it in the same way that Jon Peters said there needs to be an action scene every 10 pages (or whatever), and it became Crouching Cajun, Hidden Cardshark during the fight with his “telecardnesis” and “stick climbing” abilities.

Making Emma Frost sisters with Silverfox is just lore breaking and mind bogglingly stupid and inconsistent with comics and future movies, and Xavier walking makes some inconsistencies with future films, and there’s not really a reason to entangle Cyclops into the story – we can have Wolverine’s origin and not include everyone from the roster.

Blob was never part of the Weapon X team (I realize this is a change from the comics and that’s not necessarily a bad thing but it feels like they included him just to include him), meanwhile Silverfox (Kayla) should have been on the team.

Deadpool was really done dirty in this film. They had the perfect actor to play him and they squandered it in the worst way possible. And having 10 powers combined was just a stupid idea to begin with. That said, if DINO (Deadpool-in-name-only) had Cyclops’ powers, adamantium claws shouldn’t have been able to stop the beams, even if the director/producer thought they were heat blasts instead of concussive blasts.

An adamantium bullet as mind-wiper was just a very, very dumb way to set up Logan’s amnesia and contradicts his X-ray in the first film which didn’t show 2 bullet-holes.   
 
What I would have changed:

I would have just adapted the Weapon X story from Marvel Comics Presents in the early 80’s along with the James Howlett stuff that had recently been printed which inspired the first 8 minutes of the movie. There was already a great story there – I don’t see why they had to just make new shit up for no reason.
 
 
 
 
 

The Wolverine (2013)

The Buildup: 

After a couple of disappointing films, the X-Men franchise scored a hit with First Class, and now they’re going back to the well of the most popular character to try another solo movie.

The Plot: 

After being forced to kill Jean, Logan has become a recluse in the woods and vows to not hurt anyone else. He sees flashbacks of his time saving Yashida’s life during the Nagasaki bombing, as well as hallucinating conversations with Jean. He is taken to Japan to bid farewell to a now aged and cancerous Yashida, and charged with protecting his granddaughter Mariko. The Yakuza stage a kidnapping at the funeral, forcing Mariko and Logan to run and hide while his healing powers have strangely disappeared, and it all smells of a sinister plot involving Yashida.

 What went right:

Setting most of the movie in Japan. Hugh Jackman looks even better as Wolverine this time around, and he gets to kick plenty of ass (in a PG-13 manner) while taking in the Japanese culture/scenery. We got to see Mariko and the Silver Samurai, which were important characters to Logan in the comics.

What went wrong:

Viper’s acting is a tad on the cheesy melodramatic side that would fit well in a CW show, but not a major movie like this.

The last act of the movie was a bit cliché with the whole using Mariko as bait in a trap. After two acts that had some good writing, it felt like they gave up and just resorted to typical 80’s action movie fare.

The Silver Samurai as a giant "Iron Man" suit specifically designed to cut off and drill out Logan’s claws was a bit contrived, as was the magical sword that required two hands to work for some reason.
 
What I would have changed:

Let Harada be the Silver Samurai instead of Yashida, and followed the story of the original comics a little more closely. Make Shingen the main villain. Not that the movies need to reproduce every beat and line from the comics – it can be modernized and a few details changed around. But build the story around the established characters using the original story as a framework and alter it to fit within the movie continuity.  

Logan (2017)

The Buildup:

On the heels of The Wolverine, Days of Future Past, and Deadpool, it appeared that the X-Men franchise was experiencing a bit of an upswing in quality. This was touted as the first R-rated Wolverine movie, so expectations were high to see some better action.

The Plot:

In a world where mutants are increasingly rare, Logan is earning money as a limo driver while taking care of an aging Xavier and aided by the mutant tracker Caliban. The plan is to live on a boat away from society so as to not let Xavier’s powers hurt people, and Logan only needs a bit more money to make it happen. He takes on a job to drive a woman and young mutant girl to Canada, but gets involved with some dangerous people who want the girl, who also has claws. Logan helps get the girl to her safe haven in Canada, losing friends and himself along the way.

What went right:

The girl who plays Laura absolutely nails her role and is terrifyingly fierce as a young female Wolverine clone. The action is far more realistic because they didn’t have to stick to a PG-13 level. Hugh Jackman’s acting was on point for both his rage and his pain and suffering.

As usual, we got to see a few new faces, such as Rictor, the Reavers, and Donald Pierce. Whereas Origins: Wolverine movie was about 1/3 good, and The Wolverine was about 2/3 good, this movie was excellent the whole way through.

What went wrong:

While I like the concept of the Old Man Logan story, he shouldn’t suddenly be aging and catching up to Xavier so quickly, and Xavier should be a bit older for the timeline to make sense.

I kinda disliked the X-Men comics appearing in the X-Men film, as it’s a bit too on the nose for my taste. It would be like making a comic book over the Johnny Depp/Amber Turd trial. I also somewhat dislike when movies include other movies or TV shows whose themes are similar for the same reason.

What I would have changed:

While I liked Stewart’s performance in this, I would have eliminated Xavier from the story completely. It’s just weird to think that one of the last two X-Men alive would be Xavier, given his age. If anyone, it would be Logan and Cable. But I think there could have been enough story with just Logan and Laura on the run without Xavier. Cutting him out of the story would just necessitate a few small changes to why Logan was working as a driver. 

The X-Men Movies (Part 4 - Deadpool/Phoenix Trilogy)